The Chhattisgarh High Court firmly clarified that review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is strictly limited; parties cannot use review to raise new grounds or re-argue matters already decided. This judgment upholds prior Supreme Court dicta and confirms binding precedent for civil courts, especially regarding the finality of judgments and restricted scope of review.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | REVP/335/2025 of SMT. MANBARTA DEVI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010422462025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent restricting scope of review |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Review under CPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether a review petition can be allowed for re-arguing the case or raising new grounds not urged in the original hearing, in the absence of error apparent or new evidence as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is narrow and cannot be invoked to permit a party to re-argue or introduce new pleas which were not raised during original proceedings. Review may be entertained only where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence not within knowledge despite due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason. The review petition in this case merely sought to re-argue the case and introduce material already present but not relied on during initial arguments; thus, no ground for review was made out. The finality of the original order is preserved unless compelling review grounds under CPC exist. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Section 114 CPC; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Multiple Supreme Court authorities restricting review to errors apparent, discovery of new evidence, or other sufficient reason; Review not a rehearing or substitute for appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners sought review/recall of an order dismissing their writ petition, arguing that the land in question was wrongly recorded as forest land when some old records showed it as barren land. The original revenue documents were on record but their significance was not argued in the main proceedings. Respondent (State) argued review cannot re-open arguments or allow new pleas, and that the Collector had made categorical findings. The Court found no error apparent or new evidence, and dismissed the review petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate (district and civil) courts in Chhattisgarh for interpretation of review under CPC |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and potentially the Supreme Court where review jurisdiction is invoked |
| Follows | Supreme Court precedents: M/s Northern India v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, etc. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot be used to introduce new grounds or evidence that was available but not argued in the original hearing.
- Emphasizes strict compliance with grounds under Order 47 Rule 1 (error apparent, new evidence, or sufficient reason).
- Lawyers should ensure all relevant facts and documents are brought to the Court’s notice in initial proceedings; omissions cannot be remedied by review.
- Use of review as “a second appeal in disguise” is disallowed and will result in dismissal.
- The fact that parties or their counsel failed to point out a document in earlier proceedings does not constitute a ground for review.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed the scope and power of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, relying on the plain text as well as precedents.
- Reviewed Supreme Court authorities which unequivocally state that review cannot serve as an appeal in disguise; review is not a rehearing.
- Cited that new evidence or grounds unavailable despite due diligence, or mistakes apparent on the face of the record, are the only lawful bases for review.
- Relied on M/s Northern India v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi to emphasize the finality of judgments and the high bar for review.
- Held that the review petition in this case improperly attempted to raise new factual arguments on the basis of documents already on record but not highlighted or relied upon at the proper stage.
- Concluded that such grounds do not satisfy Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and dismissed the review petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The order under review was based on the mistaken assumption that the subject land was recorded as forest land, while revenue records from 1981–86 showed it as barren land.
- The Collector failed to consider relevant revenue documents before passing the impugned order.
- The issue goes to the root of the case and the review is expedient in the interest of justice.
Respondent (State)
- The grounds raised in the review were not raised at the time of hearing of the writ petition.
- The Collector had categorically found the land was recorded as forest land in revenue records.
- Petitioners cannot be permitted to re-argue the writ petition or take up new pleas at the review stage; review petition deserves dismissal.
Factual Background
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging governmental/administrative orders relating to Khasra No. 439/2, which was recorded as forest land in the revenue records. The Collector’s decision, based on this finding, went against the petitioners. They later filed for review, contending that earlier revenue records (1981–86) showed the land as barren and this crucial fact was not considered at the hearing. The review petition was contested by the State on the grounds that these contentions constituted new pleas, not maintainable at the review stage.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment directly interprets Section 114 CPC (review power) and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC (grounds and procedure for review).
- The Court reiterates that review is allowable only on discovery of new and important matter/evidence not previously within knowledge (despite due diligence), error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason.
- The explanation to Order 47 Rule 1, stating that a subsequent change in law or coordinate Bench’s view is not itself a ground for review, is highlighted.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision closely adheres to and affirms well-established Supreme Court authority on the narrow scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.